A crucial principle which should be applied to discussions: scrutineering. At present, we can be confident that elections in voting stations with booths are fair and uncorrupted because people of all sorts, with many different interests (laypeople) are *capable* of credibly scrutineering the process. As soon as you go online, credible scrutineers drops to a tiny, specialised sliver of tech experts. Who are, therefore, easy to co-opt/corrupt/bribe/bamboozle. 1/2

@lightweight I guess you heard that thing on the radio this morning too, "ooh online elections are perfectly fine to use, other places do them all the time" ...

@yojimbo Yep. Warwick Lampp *wrote* (almost single handedly, I understand) the Electionz.com online voting system. Based on everything I've heard him and his boss say, the thought of that is horrifying.

@yojimbo the fact that RNZ didn't make his vested interest extremely clear to listeners is very troubling.

@lightweight Yes, I was just going to say the same thing. There was a very strong implication that his comments were in some way "official", or that his business was part of the real elections process. A shame that "election" isn't a protected term for business/trading names I think.


@yojimbo yes. This document fyi.org.nz/request/3937/respon also suggests collusion between LGNZ officials & Electionz.com and Election Services (the redacted bit could be *very* interesting) where they appear to have suggested it'd be worth those businesses' while to build systems... and LGNZ now feel an obligation to use them. That's both dodgy & dangerous.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!